Was the air force overpowered in HOI2?

[coryclp]

Look at Midway the four main carriers were destroyed in something 5-10 minutes from only a few bombs; the real life examples above show how only a few planes can damage or destroy the main capital ships. I

Yes, but look at the Japanese Air Force versus American Carrier groups later in the war. Hundreds of planes were stopped by a combination of CAGs and fleet AA.

Getting some ships wiped by Nav, acceptable. An entire fleet... not so much. The same with CAS. They should be able to hurt the enemy in both strength and org, but not literally wipe out entire divisions.

 

[Mjarr]

Also when considering Midway's sunken carriers, Americans did have some sort of surprise avaible as some of the carriers had CAG refueled and rearmed preparing to takeoff and by the time they arrived they had virtually no chance to scramble and intercept and carrier with full CAG to add extra bang to the expected boom, it isn't that difficult to figure out what might happen.

Typically when you consider battleships\cruisers\such sunk by aircraft, it is no real miracle. Carrier sunk by aircraft is neither, but entire fleets getting wasted by sole spam of aircraft (not to mention how to organize formations, going in proper directions, size etc) is ridiculous. Having 800 plane's (using that 8x NAV as example) formation flying around it's pretty damm easy to spot and to probably scramble CAGs airbourne. Not to mention they do have to fly pretty low in order to have reasonable chance to even hit the ships, it's gonna be a hell of alot problem how to manouvre or even attack - no matter how well the formation would be formed, attack would be timed or so as by the time the big group is spotted and is within reasonable range, having that much AA flying around is pretty much like firing a shotgun to tower of 400 beer cans and checking which one got hit or not.

 

[Eugenioso]

what a stupid question.

the airforce wasnt overpowered in HOI2 (just read all the past threads!)

the problem is that the enemy didnt build an airforce of its own to counter them!

yes, its true that 16 CAS running amok on russia would kill 30 divisions, but its also true that the russians spend a lot more IC on TAC's and some CAS to spending money on ways to counter the enemy's TAC and CAS air groups.

when i play HOI2 i usually, as germany, just use my massive airforce at the beginning of a campaign like Poland or France, and also at the beginning of barbarossa to really crack open the russian defense. after that they go on to either to france to bomb UK and starve em with subs, or sent them to my 20 divs' Afrika Korps.

so the problem wasnt an overpowered airforce. it was always powerful. the problem was no enemy airforce to oppose them.

it makes a big difference when you attack an airforce-heavy army like the UK or US, with their big ass bomber fleets and fighters

 

[enigmamcmxc]

coryclp:Ah good point i see where he was coming from now; i was throwing large payload medium and heavy bombers supported by dive bombers and fighter-bombers at the enemy fleets. The ones you and the other chap have described are not the same type.

Also the real life examples support what i said in regards to the above types but does not support Catalina's etc Did the latter ever knock out a capital ship?

Mjarr: In regards to Midway some of that may be true but iirc the Japanese reserve that was protecting the fleet was simpley overwelmed; while they were knocking the American torp-bombers out of the sky the dive-bombers came in from another direction and dropped their payloads.

the problem is that the enemy didnt build an airforce of its own to counter them! ... so the problem wasnt an overpowered airforce. it was always powerful. the problem was no enemy airforce to oppose them.

I completly the disagree, playing Doomsday the AI always built large air fleets. In the campaign i have been quoting from the Italian AI turned the area between Sciliy and N.Africa a no go zone as it would Nav bomb your ships to Davey Jones locker.

I dont recall seeing much use of tactical bombers by the AI, they might have done its been a long time since i played that campaign but i do recall huge numbers of fighters and my airforce swatting them out of the sky.

Edit: Looking back over my old posts i note that before i declared war on the Soviet Union in something like 1947 while they had something like 600 divisions they had 47 fighter wings/groups but no bombers in comparison to my (UK and CW) 50 fighters and 63 bombers. The US had 102 fighters and 86 bombers a third of which were Nav bombers.

It appears i didnt record the Chinese/Japanese (my main foe in the campaign) air power status nor that of the Germans but i do recall from a much earlier campaign on the original HOI2 that i launched several paradrops on costal airfields to attempt to destory the large numbers of fighters the Germans had built.

 

[coryclp]

I cannot find any examples where a Catalina sank capital ships. I find vague references to damaging some, but that's it. In fact its difficult to find any examples of WW2 "naval" bombers sinking large amounts of warships, at least in HOI standards. (They certainly did sink their share of merchant shipping though).

I am not against air being lethal to ships, especially in the context you mentioned of a multitude of land based aircraft. But IMO think the biggest omission in the air vs ships issue is that there is a lack of spotting rules for air vs ships. I can think of any number of examples where ships avoided detection and thus air attack. Even the miracle at Midway was mostly due to luck. If I recall, the lead American pilot reached the end of his fuel supply while searching for the carriers and had to make a choice which way to turn to go home. He just happened to choose the right way to turn. Note that even a spotted force would still have to be searched for somewhat by a strike that was launched against it. Currently in HOI an air force will immediately spot and attack a fleet as soon as it hits the sea zone.

Maybe a spotting system could allow fleets a chance to transit areas quickly, or at least give a chance to close the range and engage the enemy fleet. If nothing else, it would definitely reduce the lethality a bit.

 

[Laurwin]

what a stupid question.

the airforce wasnt overpowered in HOI2 (just read all the past threads!)

the problem is that the enemy didnt build an airforce of its own to counter them!

yes, its true that 16 CAS running amok on russia would kill 30 divisions, but its also true that the russians spend a lot more IC on TAC's and some CAS to spending money on ways to counter the enemy's TAC and CAS air groups.

when i play HOI2 i usually, as germany, just use my massive airforce at the beginning of a campaign like Poland or France, and also at the beginning of barbarossa to really crack open the russian defense. after that they go on to either to france to bomb UK and starve em with subs, or sent them to my 20 divs' Afrika Korps.

so the problem wasnt an overpowered airforce. it was always powerful. the problem was no enemy airforce to oppose them.

it makes a big difference when you attack an airforce-heavy army like the UK or US, with their big ass bomber fleets and fighters

Speaking from my little multiplayer experience in hoi2, I kind of agree. The problem REALLY boiled down to the fact that the A.I. never really built 'proper' airforces. With human opponents, air dominance still stays important because of the consequences of actually getting bombed to pieces.

There were a couple of cases in the eastern front in real life where entire armoured brigades were wiped out by CAS strikes (this is to say that the entire armoured component was destroyed/disabled).

Even massive bombing by strategic bombers was quite effective against large troop concentrations, infantry in particular. I believe it was in the preparatory bombings in the operation Goodwood (may very well be that I'm talking about a wrong operation but it was in Normandy still) that a Fallschirmjäger regiment was wiped out with bombing. It probably was a only a regiment on paper but I guess it could still be possible.

However I do kind of agree that the annihilation at the level of HoI2 was still too much, especially against retreating troops and ships. Not to mention that the maintenance of the air forces was entirely ridiculous from the economic standpoint in hoi2, yes aircraft cost fuel but the you could literally build almost as many fighter groups as you wanted and the air war devolved into a massive war of fighter spam with very little tactics or strategy I think.

So IMHO bombers depending on their type should be able to destroy large quantities of divisional assets, regiments/brigades, not just lower the enemy organisation. Of course you shouldn't be able to wipe out entire ARMIES or fleets in the same fashion as the infamous CAS and NAVs of hoi2 I think.

 

[Mjarr]

Not to mention that the maintenance of the air forces was entirely ridiculous from the economic standpoint in hoi2, yes aircraft cost fuel but the you could literally build almost as many fighter groups as you wanted and the air war devolved into a massive war of fighter spam with very little tactics or strategy I think.

Which is pretty much related to earlier point mentioned before: there is nothing really to prevent you from making massive spam and zergrush of aircraft in the game besides if you decide not to do so.

while they were knocking the American torp-bombers out of the sky the dive-bombers came in from another direction and dropped their payloads.

Probably, but after all the main point is not that CAGs sinks carriers or ships, or even planes in general, but rather that sinking entire fleet within one day by simply making massive navrush\tacrush kekekekekke is rather silly.

Similiarly you could say that especially when playing online with some more hardcore types it's pretty common to see 120+ fighters\interceptors vs another 120+ fighters\interceptors in english channel once the war breaks out and the one who wins that decisive air battle is pretty much declared winner of the game to some degree.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

Lets be fair, thats how it is. The Bismarck, Tirpitz, Prince of Wales, the Repluse, the Italian battleships at Taranto, the Yamato, the US battleships at Pearl Harbour or the Japanese carriers at Midway.

As said above: There is nothing wrong with airplanes sinking ships, but being able to avoid the whole DD/CL escort is. I don't spend IC to build 12 CL to escort my 6 CV just to see them standing around, doing nothing.

Thank god that was fixed with Arma...

 

[Tharkun]

People that don't believe that airforce was overpowered in HoI2 don't know what they are talking about. It's as simple as that and it's not worth debating with them. They are the same people who convinced Paradox to make the change from realistic airforce (HoI2 1.2) to absurdly powerful airforce that kills everything in sight (HoI2 1.3). And now they are complaining that things are back to normal again and they cannot destroy entire armies with their super-cas and navies with their super-navs.

The argument that the AI does not take countermeasures (building interceptors) is completely irrelevant. Intercepted or not, the 24-cas-stack should not be able to even take off, let alone destroy a country's army.

 

[unmerged(20208)]

Planes are optional in all versions of HoI. In fact, ignoring everything that has to do with planes will actually make you a more powerful nation. This one point alone proves beyond any doubt that air power is, and always has been, implemented incorrectly.

I really am surprised that they did not totally re-make air power in HoI 3, since the way air power works in HoI makes air planes optional and unessecary, and really just a waste of resources.

 

[Kuciwalker]

yes, its true that 16 CAS running amok on russia would kill 30 divisions, but its also true that the russians spend a lot more IC on TAC's and some CAS to spending money on ways to counter the enemy's TAC and CAS air groups.

Try more like 300.

 

[unmerged(13597)]

Ok vs ships, not vs land

Air power *should* be very deadly vs ships, especially after the apropriate doctrines and weapons have been researched. (1934 torpedoes should be 90% dud's though, at least they were historically.)

But on land, airial assaults should NOT be able to do much strength loss to enemy divisions, in particular when they are not already engaged your own ground forces.

Close air support (ie direct ground attack) should be modified as follows:
+100% combined arms efficiency to ground units while their is a friendly CAS mission in the combat
+100% combined arms efficiency to CAS and MR fighters units when attacking units already attacked by ground units.
+50% for other aircraft under the same circumstances
-50% (or more) for any aircraft trying direct attacks vs stationary enemy ground units that are not engaged by friendly ground units

Interdiction missions should only do medium amounts of damage to moving units (and not to stationary units), but should also have a serious effect on supply throughput.

Cheers
Hakon

 

[Laurwin]

Planes are optional in all versions of HoI. In fact, ignoring everything that has to do with planes will actually make you a more powerful nation. This one point alone proves beyond any doubt that air power is, and always has been, implemented incorrectly.

I really am surprised that they did not totally re-make air power in HoI 3, since the way air power works in HoI makes air planes optional and unessecary, and really just a waste of resources.

err, dunno, maybe with Russia or puppeted china where you get humongous amounts of manpower all the time.

the point with that I really meant with the aircraft maintenance is mainly that aircraft in hoi2 were too cheap for what they could do, too cheap in IC-days AND IN MANPOWER. I mean Britain had a serious lack of pilots during the battle of Britain for instance. Germany kept losing its air aces during the war and had also pilot shortage problems during late war.

You can't just draft any kind of averige joe from the street into the air force... AND expect them to perform well in the fighter cockpit. A higher manpower cost would at least model the fact that not every draftable future soldier has what it takes to be a pilot. There were actually people with eyeglasses in the 1940s :rofl:

Aircraft casualties were pretty good and severe in hoi2, at least in multiplayer IIRC. Can't say the same for HoI3, though I haven't played it that much either.

 

[joeenochs]

err, dunno, maybe with Russia or puppeted china where you get humongous amounts of manpower all the time.

the point with that I really meant with the aircraft maintenance is mainly that aircraft in hoi2 were too cheap for what they could do, too cheap in IC-days AND IN MANPOWER. I mean Britain had a serious lack of pilots during the battle of Britain for instance. Germany kept losing its air aces during the war and had also pilot shortage problems during late war.

You can't just draft any kind of averige joe from the street into the air force... AND expect them to perform well in the fighter cockpit. A higher manpower cost would at least model the fact that not every draftable future soldier has what it takes to be a pilot. There were actually people with eyeglasses in the 1940s :rofl:

Aircraft casualties were pretty good and severe in hoi2, at least in multiplayer IIRC. Can't say the same for HoI3, though I haven't played it that much either.

Maybe the air force should drag more from your officer's pool then, not from manpower.

Anyway, that would be, if it was very powerful.

 

[enigmamcmxc]

Even massive bombing by strategic bombers was quite effective against large troop concentrations, infantry in particular. I believe it was in the preparatory bombings in the operation Goodwood (may very well be that I'm talking about a wrong operation but it was in Normandy still) that a Fallschirmjäger regiment was wiped out with bombing. It probably was a only a regiment on paper but I guess it could still be possible.

I dont know about destroying an entire regiment but i do know that the strategic bombers used practically neuterlised the entire frontline positions for a fair amount of time; the tanks were able to roll through without facing an serious resistance for a while. Perhaps a higher organisation loss depending on what type of bombers you used would portray this in game?

 

[Apocal]

I love the way that everyone who uses Midway as an example of airpower destroying a fleet quickly and decisively misses out on the fact that

A) Most of the Japanese ships were untouched.
B) After the battle the American airwings combined had less than 20 serviceable aircraft. Every CAG involved in the battle was utterly ruined by time night fell. Virtually every Midway dive-bomber and fighter had been mauled as well.

 

[Daztek]

.

in HOI2 ground and surface attack varied wildly from version to version as PI responded to the critique of each version

early on everyone said air power was way too weak, then later that it was way too strong, it really bounced around quite a bit.

i agree with the earlier poster who said we ought to wait for weather at sea to be fixed before making judgments about air to surface attack

on land, i find ground attack to be influential enough, even in 1939 CAS attacking enemy in rain influence the combat by a few percentage points, enough to make a difference and speed things up.

as to not researching air and having more advanced land combat tech, that's a valid strategy i believe.

but with no air force you give up useful non-combat capabilities, like air supply or paratroops or interdiction for the purpose of slowing down enemy formations, etc.

 

[enigmamcmxc]

I love the way that everyone who uses Midway as an example of airpower destroying a fleet quickly and decisively misses out on the fact that

A) Most of the Japanese ships were untouched.
B) After the battle the American airwings combined had less than 20 serviceable aircraft. Every CAG involved in the battle was utterly ruined by time night fell. Virtually every Midway dive-bomber and fighter had been mauled as well.

I dont believe we missed out the fact the naval planes were mauled, it was primarly an example of how a few cheap tiny planes can disable, and infact destroy, the most important ships in a fleet in five minutes.

In a five hour operation, including time flying to and from the target, a handfull of swordfish biplanes destroyed 1 battleship and severly damaged two more of the Italian main fleet. Inspired by such the attack on Pearl Harbour knocked out the main American Battleship fleet.

Taking out the capital ships essentialy establishes oneself naval superiority. What we have saw in game is this and a quite a bit more...

 

[Apocal]

Taking out the capital ships essentialy establishes oneself naval superiority. What we have saw in game is this and a quite a bit more...

...and on the other hand you have actions such as Adm. Merrill's after the Battle of Empress Augusta Bay, in which a group of under a dozen ships, none bigger than a CL, not only beat off an attack by over one hundred Japanese aircraft, but shot or rendered unserviceable close to a third of the attacking aircraft without a single hit to themselves. Or any number of surface vs. aircraft engagements that happened during the war that don't get press, because the surface ships won. At least insofar as they were still afloat with only marginal damage or disruption.

It's not exciting or sexy, but that's how it goes. Sometimes you're the lion, sometimes you're the zebra.

 

[unmerged(106255)]

CAS should have tiered damage progression in their attacks. Say, the first 1/3 of STR and ORG of the target depletes fairly quickly, then the next 1/3 goes slower, and the last 1/3 is almost untouchable. That way they can be reasonably powerful, but not the gamebreakers they were in HOI2. They should also do a greater amount of damage to tank and truck units relative to foot infantry units.